5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Baku.
6.  The applicant is an independent journalist who at the relevant time was working for the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper.
7.  At the time of the events described below, criminal proceedings were pending against the editor-in-chief of the newspaper for publication of certain articles.
8.  The applicant regularly authored articles in which he criticised the Government’s security and defence policies, as well as the activities of various senior military officers.
9.  On 20 April 2007 an article entitled “Comrade General, I am ready to ransack the army” (“Yoldaş general, ordunu çapıb-talamağa hazıram”) and signed by the applicant was published in the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper. In the article the applicant criticised a colonel in the army (F.M.), accusing him of corruption and illegal activities.
10.  On the same day the applicant was present at the hearing held in the Yasamal District Court as part of the criminal proceedings instituted against Eynulla Fatullayev, the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper. Following the hearing, the Yasamal District Court convicted Eynulla Fatullayev of defamation and sentenced him to two and half years’ imprisonment (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, 22 April 2010).
11.  At around 5.45 p.m. on 20 April 2007 the applicant left the Yasamal District Court building and went to the offices of the newspaper.
12.  At around 11.45 p.m. on 20 April 2007, when the applicant left the newspaper office, he was subjected to a violent attack by two men. The applicant was hit several times on head with a hard blunt object. He was also punched by his aggressors.
13.  Having heard the applicant’s screams, his colleagues came out of the office. At that moment, the assailants left the scene of the incident by car.
14.  The applicant was immediately taken to hospital where, owing to the gravity of his injuries, he received in-patient treatment for a period of seven days. It appears from the medical certificate issued by the doctor who examined him that the applicant arrived at the hospital at 1.45 a.m. on 21 April 2007 and left the hospital on 28 April 2007. The applicant was diagnosed with cranial injury and contusions on the upper lip.
15.  On 23 April 2007 the Yasamal District Police Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 132 (beating) of the Criminal Code in connection with the attack on the applicant.
16.  On 25 April 2007 the investigator questioned the applicant in hospital. It appears from the record of the questioning that the applicant described in detail the circumstances of the attack, giving a detailed physical description of his assailants. He further stated that he had seen one of his assailants before, on 20 April at the Yasamal District Court. He also stated that on the same day at around 10 p.m. his colleagues had seen the assailants in the vicinity of the newspaper office. As to the investigator’s question whether he had an ongoing dispute with anyone, the applicant answered that he had had a dispute with T.C. (the person who had instituted the criminal proceedings for defamation against the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper), who had threatened him verbally and in the media. At the end of the questioning, the applicant stated that, as he had authored articles relating to the activities of the Ministry of Defence, the attack on him could have been organised by officials of that Ministry.
17.  On 1 May 2007, while watching a video recording of a court hearing in the criminal proceedings against the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper, the applicant recognised one of his two assailants. This person (N.R.) was a police officer from the Yasamal District Police Office. The applicant’s colleagues also recognised N.R. as the person whom they had seen standing outside the newspaper office on the day of the attack.
18.  The applicant immediately informed the investigator of the identity of N.R., requesting an official identity parade and the questioning of his colleagues as witnesses. The applicant also submitted that, as one of the assailants was a police officer, he suspected F.M. of being the person behind the attack. He therefore asked the investigator to check whether F.M. had called N.R. by telephone prior to or on the day of the attack and to obtain video recordings from the security cameras situated in the vicinity of the scene of the incident.
19.  In the meantime, in an interview published on 3 May 2007 in the newspaper Üç Nöqtə, the Minister of Internal Affairs was questioned about the attack on the applicant. He made the following statement:
“We have the information that this incident is an act of sabotage and had been organised by Uzeyir Jafarov [the applicant] himself.”
In reply to a journalist’s suggestion that Uzeyir Jafarov had already provided the police with some facts concerning the attack, the Minister stated:
“Uzeyir Jafarov may give a lot of things to the police. If he has the facts, he can give them. But it is up to the investigation to establish whether his allegations are true or not.”
The Minister did not reply to the journalist’s further question as to what measures would be taken if it was established that the assailant was a police officer.
20.  On 3 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General complaining of the police authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation. He asked the Prosecutor General to remove the investigation from the police and to order the prosecution authorities to conduct an effective investigation. In this connection, he submitted that as one of the assailants was, in his view, a police officer from the Yasamal District Police Office, an investigator from the same police office could not carry out an effective investigation.
21.  On 8 May 2007 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert, who found numerous injuries on his head and upper lip. The expert also concluded that these injuries caused minor harm to the applicant’s health.
22.  Following the forensic examination, the criminal proceedings were continued under Article 128 (deliberate infliction of minor injury to health) of the Criminal Code.
23.  On 13 June 2007 the investigator in charge of the case sent a letter to the applicant which reads:
“In reply to your request of 3 May 2007, you are informed that the investigation instituted in connection with the attack on you on 20 April 2007 is pending, but it has not yet been possible to identify the assailant. At the same time, you are informed that N.N., the police officer from the Yasamal District Police Office, was not prosecuted because it had not been established that he had inflicted bodily injury on you.”
24.  On 23 June 2007 the investigator issued a decision suspending the criminal proceedings in connection with the attack on the applicant. The investigator substantiated the decision by the fact that, although all possible investigative steps had been taken, it had not been possible to determine who had assaulted the applicant. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“During the investigation the necessary investigative actions were taken, some persons were questioned as witnesses, U. Jafarov was questioned and granted victim status. However, it has not been possible to identify the person who committed this act. Therefore, taking into consideration that the two-month investigation period of the criminal case ends on 23 June 2007, it is appropriate to suspend the criminal proceedings until the perpetrator has been identified.”
25.  The applicant was not informed of the decision suspending the investigation.
26.  On 1 October 2007 the applicant lodged a new complaint with the Prosecutor General. The applicant complained of the investigator’s failure to conduct an effective investigation, claiming a violation of the rights protected under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. In this connection he complained that, although he had informed the investigator that one of his assailants was, in his view, the police officer N.R., no action had been taken by those conducting the investigation. In particular, the investigator had failed to arrange an identity parade including N.R., to question his colleagues as witnesses, and to order a face-to-face confrontation between him and N.R. and between his colleagues and N.R. The applicant also complained about the statements made by the Minister of Internal Affairs, noting that the police could not conduct an effective investigation after the Minister of Internal Affairs had stated that the applicant had staged the attack on himself.
27.  The Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Yasamal District Police Office by letter on 31 October 2007.
28.  On 14 December 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Yasamal District Court. Relying on Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention, he maintained that one of his aggressors had been a police officer and complained that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect. He reiterated his previous complaints, noting that the investigator had failed to arrange an identity parade including N.R., to question his colleagues as witnesses, and to order a face-to-face confrontation between him and N.R. and between his colleagues and N.R. He also submitted that the investigator had failed to obtain video recordings from security cameras situated in the vicinity of the scene of the incident and to check F.M.’s telephone calls. He further argued that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention, since ‒ although he had been attacked because of his journalistic activity ‒ the State had failed to protect him as a journalist and to prosecute his aggressors.
29.  At the subsequent hearing before the court the applicant learned of the investigator’s decision of 23 June 2007 suspending the criminal proceedings.
30.  On 27 December 2007 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that he should have complained to the prosecutor and not to the court concerning the actions of the investigator.
31.  On 11 January 2008 the applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating his previous complaints. He also complained about the decision to suspend the investigation, noting that the investigator had failed to take appropriate procedural steps with the aim of identifying the perpetrators.
32.  On 28 January 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 27 December 2007.